The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should gay people be allowed to adopt?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by JonathanM
"research shows", it can show anything given different circumstances.

Gay people should be allowed to be classed as guardians but not two dads. I see it as a decent thing for them to look after a child but not to be the childs father(s).


That sounded stupid to me. The father/mother is the one the child sees as their parent, no matter what you think. So you are just talking semantics.

Why is it not a decent thing for a couple to adopt a child, in need of a family?
Original post by FusRohDah
THIS.

Mainstream public are traditional families with their own daily problems.

Why on earth should they be bothered about the sexual issues of a world minority with all the econo-politicial problems there are...

This coming from someone who doesn't give a crap about homosexuality. To be honest, I couldn't give less of a **** if they want to get married/adopt (it doesn't affect me in any way if they do), what I don't want is daily news on this bull**** with everything that's going on around the globe at the moment.


Exactly. Most people don't dwell on this topic, but if it does by some chance come up in a family household, overwelmingly the view will be against gay adoption. Internet polls only deal with a tiny segment of society who are usually fixated with these issues with agendas (the whole 'gay rights' thing) certainly not represntative of the normal family household.
Reply 1042
Avatar for Jester94
Jester94
Original post by JonathanM
"research shows", it can show anything given different circumstances.


Yes, if the research is manipulated or not conducted in a proper way, obviously, but that is not reason enough to dismiss all research.

Gay people should be allowed to be classed as guardians but not two dads. I see it as a decent thing for them to look after a child but not to be the childs father(s).


So are you as opposed to a lesbian couple adopting a child? Or a single mother? Or a single father?

If the child sees them as parents, you can't really change that, can you, no matter how you want people to be classified.
Reply 1043
Avatar for chefdave
chefdave
No. I disapprove of state sanctioned gay adoption because I believe that when it comes to business of raising children the traditional couple is more capable of handling the task than two men, or two women, or a man and a dog etc etc. This doesn't conflict with the idea of rights simply because nobody has a right to adopt a child, it's a privilege, one that can be withdrawn without explanation. It's not the state's job to furnish homosexuals with children because they're incapable of producing them themselves, sorry.
Original post by chefdave
No. I disapprove of state sanctioned gay adoption because I believe that when it comes to business of raising children the traditional couple is more capable of handling the task than two men, or two women, or a man and a dog etc etc. This doesn't conflict with the idea of rights simply because nobody has a right to adopt a child, it's a privilege, one that can be withdrawn without explanation. It's not the state's job to furnish homosexuals with children because they're incapable of producing them themselves, sorry.


Note how you say "more capable" insinuating that homosexual people are capable of adoption and doing well. So, does your theory not show true that even if no one wants to adopt, the best option is gay adoption?
Original post by Jester94


Yes, feelings are important, and you can have as many of them as you want, but you cannot expect your feelings to dictate somebody eles's life.


Excuse me? I never said that I expect them to dictate somebody else's life. Like another person said when they argued with me that they didn't like bananas but that's not going to cause them to be banned or something along those lines. Exactly. You wouldn't have a go at me for expressing my dislike of bananas. It's just an opinion. So why are you saying I expect my feelings to dictate some else's life?
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
What do you mean people don't get bullied for intelligence? Yes they do. :confused: People get bullied for all kinds of things.


Bullies hand out iq tests do they? People who say theywere bullied for intelligence were really bullied for being squares.

You clearly don't know what bullying is. :colonhash:


Not what id consider to be bullying. 1v1 = fight = sorted

If that were true then children of homosexual parents wouldn't be any more subject to bullying than anyone because your parents are not part your personality. Way to go against your own argument.


Yeah, unlike you im looking at things in an honest way and arguing what i believe to be true rather than picking a side and hurling everything i can find. I think the mentality youve shown here relieves you of any credibility you may still have had.
Reply 1047
Avatar for Jester94
Jester94
Original post by chefdave
No. I disapprove of state sanctioned gay adoption because I believe that when it comes to business of raising children the traditional couple is more capable of handling the task than two men, or two women, or a man and a dog etc etc. This doesn't conflict with the idea of rights simply because nobody has a right to adopt a child, it's a privilege, one that can be withdrawn without explanation. It's not the state's job to furnish homosexuals with children because they're incapable of producing them themselves, sorry.


Homosexuality =/= infertility.
Gay couples are not the same as mixed-species couples.

Studies and research show that having two parents of the same sex does not adversely affect the development of a child in comparison to a child, compared to a heterosexual couple; both are equally capable of raising a child well. Though, seeing as you believe children are best raised by a traditional couple, presumably you are also opposed to single people adopting?

If I suddenly withdrew your privilege to adopt, because of something you cannot change yet does not affect your ability to be a good parent, how would you feel?
Reply 1048
Avatar for Jester94
Jester94
Original post by thescientist17
Excuse me? I never said that I expect them to dictate somebody else's life. Like another person said when they argued with me that they didn't like bananas but that's not going to cause them to be banned or something along those lines. Exactly. You wouldn't have a go at me for expressing my dislike of bananas. It's just an opinion. So why are you saying I expect my feelings to dictate some else's life?


Mini's post actually makes the same point I did; that just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you can expect it to not happen.
Original post by chefdave
No. I disapprove of state sanctioned gay adoption because I believe that when it comes to business of raising children the traditional couple is more capable of handling the task than two men, or two women, or a man and a dog etc etc. This doesn't conflict with the idea of rights simply because nobody has a right to adopt a child, it's a privilege, one that can be withdrawn without explanation. It's not the state's job to furnish homosexuals with children because they're incapable of producing them themselves, sorry.


Gay people can have children (unless they are infertile, but that is nothing to do with their sexuality). And sexuality does not affect your ability to be a parent - or the research would not show that same-sex couples are as good at parenting as their opposite-sex counterparts.
And while I agree that adopting a child is a priviledge, you wouldn't deny a straight couple the opportunity to adopt because of something outside their control that doesn't affect their ability to care for children (them both having blue eyes for example - has as much affect on your ability to raise children as being gay does). Fair enough if there is something about a particular gay couple that means that they wouldn't be good parents, they should be subject to the same checks as a straight couple - but that goes without saying.
Original post by thescientist17
Excuse me? I never said that I expect them to dictate somebody else's life. Like another person said when they argued with me that they didn't like bananas but that's not going to cause them to be banned or something along those lines. Exactly. You wouldn't have a go at me for expressing my dislike of bananas. It's just an opinion. So why are you saying I expect my feelings to dictate some else's life?


I was agreeing with Jester.
If you enter a debate with an opinion based on nothing but your feelings and then when someone says 'but your feelings shouldn't dictate someone else's life' you say you never meant it that way, then what was the point of joining the debate if you have nothing to debate?
I'm not attacking you, I just don't understand your point.
Awkward ,this world is coming to an end !
Original post by chefdave
No. I disapprove of state sanctioned gay adoption because I believe that when it comes to business of raising children the traditional couple is more capable of handling the task than two men, or two women, or a man and a dog etc etc. This doesn't conflict with the idea of rights simply because nobody has a right to adopt a child, it's a privilege, one that can be withdrawn without explanation. It's not the state's job to furnish homosexuals with children because they're incapable of producing them themselves, sorry.


Surely you should be focusing on what the children want and need, not what you believe, especially when what you believe is plainly false?
Original post by green.tea
Bullies hand out iq tests do they? People who say theywere bullied for intelligence were really bullied for being squares.


What constitutes being square? Doing well in school is usually a part of that isn't it? Hm...sounds like intelligence is an attribute that leads to someone being bullied. :colonhash:

Not what id consider to be bullying. 1v1 = fight = sorted


As I said you clearly don't even understand what bullying is.

Yeah, unlike you im looking at things in an honest way and arguing what i believe to be true rather than picking a side and hurling everything i can find. I think the mentality youve shown here relieves you of any credibility you may still have had.


What mentality? And how have I 'picked a side' and 'hurled everything I can find'? I have only posted evidence that contradicts what you say. You know the sort of thing that is required when entering into an intellectual debate. You source evidence for your position. So far you have posted 1 or 2 things, of which neither supports your claims, and I have posted findings that support my position. So explain to me who has no credibility? :colondollar:
Original post by Pyramidologist
Exactly. Most people don't dwell on this topic, but if it does by some chance come up in a family household, overwelmingly the view will be against gay adoption. Internet polls only deal with a tiny segment of society who are usually fixated with these issues with agendas (the whole 'gay rights' thing) certainly not represntative of the normal family household.


Still waiting for some evidence to support these claims.
Reply 1055
Avatar for mmmpie
mmmpie
12
Original post by chefdave
No. I disapprove of state sanctioned gay adoption because I believe that when it comes to business of raising children the traditional couple is more capable of handling the task than two men, or two women, or a man and a dog etc etc. This doesn't conflict with the idea of rights simply because nobody has a right to adopt a child, it's a privilege, one that can be withdrawn without explanation. It's not the state's job to furnish homosexuals with children because they're incapable of producing them themselves, sorry.


The available evidence shows that a same-sex couple is as capable of raising a child as a mixed-sex couple.

I do however agree that nobody has a right to adopt a child. Adoption is principally about satisfying the rights and needs of the child, not of the prospective parents, and the decision should not be ideologically driven. Potential adoptive parents do however have the right to be considered fairly. No part of this is a 'privilege that can be withdrawn without explanation'. If you're unsuitable for some reason, that's an explanation.

Given that there is a shortage of potential adoptive parents, encouraging as broad as possible a pool of people to apply to adopt a child seems like a positive step. Even if only a few of those people might prove suitable, that's still a few more children with homes and families.
Original post by chefdave
I believe that when it comes to business of raising children the traditional couple is more capable of handling the task than two men, or two women, or a man and a dog etc etc.


"New research on the children of LGBTQ people (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) has unequivocally revealed that they are not only psychologically healthy, but often appear to exhibit better social and academic adjustment and a significantly lower incidence of social problems than their peers."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100913100856.htm

Looks like you are wrong
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
What mentality? And how have I 'picked a side' and 'hurled everything I can find'? I have only posted evidence that contradicts what you say. You know the sort of thing that is required when entering into an intellectual debate. You source evidence for your position. So far you have posted 1 or 2 things, of which neither supports your claims, and I have posted findings that support my position. So explain to me who has no credibility? :colondollar:


The mentality that if I think kids need a mother and father then I should also argue that bullying would be a big issue to avoid "going against my side of the argument". I'll leave you to argue "your side of the argument" with someone else.
Original post by thescientist17
I don't understand why I received negative reps for my comment. The question is 'should gay people be allowed to adopt' and my personal opinion is no, I understand people who are saying yes, but this is a debate so I responded to it. :smile:


Usually people expect n opinion to be backed up etc, such as mine being yes they should because so far they have found kids raised by same sex couples are as socially and academically successful or even better sometimes than kinds raised by opposite sex couples

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100913100856.htm
Original post by green.tea
The mentality that if I think kids need a mother and father then I should also argue that bullying would be a big issue to avoid "going against my side of the argument". I'll leave you to argue "your side of the argument" with someone else.


Lol you haven't been arguing anything else, and seeing as you entered into the bullying argument you were on 'that side of the argument'. Now anyway, back to credibility. Where is yours? :confused: I have been doing nothing but following the rules of debate. I stated my position and backed it up. And refuted your position using sources to show your claims are incorrect and false. You have done none of this.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you